new republic article on Obama!!!

Barack Obama is widely known as a former community organizer and as the author of The Audacity of Hope. These entries on his resume fit well with his repeated calls for change in American politics. But, for many years, Obama also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago (where he was a colleague of mine). To understand what makes him so distinctive, and why American politics has never seen anyone quite like him before, we would do well to start with a little constitutional theory.

Some judges are minimalists; other judges are visionaries. In deciding constitutional cases, minimalists gravitate toward the least controversial grounds. They like consensus and favor incompletely theorized agreements--that is, agreements about how to settle a particular dispute in the midst of disagreement or uncertainty about the fundamental questions that underlie it. For example, they decide cases involving affirmative action and presidential power without reference to sweeping theories about equality and the Constitution's commander-in-chief clause. In the nation's history, Justice Felix Frankfurter was probably the Court's most influential minimalist. In the current era, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter generally proceed as minimalists.

Not unlike the great conservative Edmund Burke, minimalists are fearful of those who are gripped by abstractions, simple ideologies, and large-scale theories. Minimalists tend to respect traditions, and they do not believe that long-standing practices should be altered lightly or without a careful analysis that includes many voices. Minimalists insist that their approach shows a kind of civic respect, because they seek to recognize--rather than to repudiate--the defining principles of ideologically diverse judges and citizens. In disputes over religious freedom, for example, they prefer results that can be accepted by believers and nonbelievers alike. Minimalists also defend their approach on pragmatic grounds. In their view, those who seek enduring change are not likely to succeed if they defy the deepest beliefs of large parts of the country. On occasion, minimalists are willing to think big and to endorse significant departures from the status quo--but they prefer to do so after accommodating, learning from, and bringing on board a variety of different perspectives. The Court's decisions banning sex discrimination emerged from a minimalist process, starting with small steps and culminating in larger ones that nearly all members of the Court, and much of the nation, were ultimately willing to endorse.

In sharp contrast, visionaries have a large-scale understanding of where the nation should be heading. They are entirely willing to press a controversial theory about, say, liberty or equality or the president's power as commander-in-chief, even if that theory offends many Americans. Visionaries object that minimalists are too cautious, too accommodating, too fearful. If visions call for wholesale rejection of the views of "the other side," so be it. Chief Justice John Marshall and Justice Hugo Black rank among constitutional law's great visionaries, having favored sweeping decisions about federal power (Marshall) and free speech (Black). On today's Court, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas frequently operate as visionaries, in the sense that they are entirely willing to overrule precedents in favor of their own distinctive visions of constitutional law. They would gladly overrule Roe v. Wade, and they would readily reject decades of precedents on affirmative action and campaign finance regulation.

Come on keen,what's wrong with what she said:"I get impatient to bring changes to America."Isn't it what everybody is asking for?I am also impatient with politicians who want to maintain the statu quo while millions of human beings are suffering from hunger ,dieases,war all over the world.

Yes, this is the kind of leader that we need.Somebody who recognizes there must be changed in order for humanity to be more just ,to move foward.It is unacceptable that in the 21 st Century that we have so many people suffering all over the world.It is unacceptable that in the richest country of the world so many young people are in jail.so many young people are illiterate.it is unacceptable that in the richest country of the world old people must decide whether to eat or to buy their medecines;they do not know if they will be able to afford a nursing home when they can no longer take care of their house.It is unacceptable that in the richest country of the world young people can not afford to buy their own house as their parents did. I appreciate a candidate who says that she is impatient to bring changes to america because that is exactly what needs to be done..

one's weakness cannot be that politically intrinsic; because we develop our weaknesses before we become politically conscious. they may play a part in our political actions, but they are not intrinsic in them.her weakness would be "plain impatience", that may play itself in political actions; but 'impatient to bring change to america" cannot in itself be one of her defining weaknesses. do you see the nuance in my attempted explanation?

Why don't you say it in a simple sentence that everybody can understand :Mrs Clinton is an impatient human being;her weakness can not be only in the political field, but it is inherent to her personality.'I rather have a leader who is impatient to change the statu quo than a procrastinator that differs actions that are needed immediately.

Look at Georges Bush's stand in the fight against global warming.The scientists have shown long ago the effects of global warming on the south pole and the consequences that process can have on the environment ;why has he been so reluctant to take the necessary actions to prevent the calamity that threatens the world?There is a difference between someone who is impatient to bring changes and a procrastinator.I prefer the former than the latter.

It is the displeasure of many haitians with Rene Preval. He is procrastinating too much.Time is money;people are suffering ;we need actions not words.

you need actions right!!!when hillary was the executive board of walmart, obama was fighting for organized labor during the reagan administration.obama is doing something for the democrats that have neven been done before, that is taking away votes in traditionally dominated areas such as northen nevada.now, if one is conspiracy theorist, one might conclude that it is a republican conspiracy, but if one undertands the appeal of obama, one may see why this shift is occurring.

One intriguing outcome of Saturday’s Democratic caucus is that Barack Obama, a Chicago politician whose appeal nationwide is deep among affluent liberals and college students, broke through in Nevada’s mining and ranching counties.

Obama beat rival Hillary Clinton decisively in nine of 14 rural Republican-dominated counties. In Esmeralda, on the state’s western edge, he won 22 delegates to nine for the New York senator.

Obama’s strength in rural Nevada speaks to the breadth of his appeal and to his campaign’s organizing efforts in Republican strongholds that Nevada’s Democratic Party has traditionally written off. It also indicates a restlessness among voters in rural Nevada that Democrats will try to tap in future elections, including the November presidential contest.

“The Obama campaign sends a message, because even though he lost the state the rurals really made up so much ground for him,” said Cindy Trigg, a rural organizer for the state Democratic Party. “Now any campaign will know that if you court the rurals you can have a tip in your favor.”

Credit the Obama campaign for creating a new playbook for rural Nevada, Trigg said. While Clinton nabbed the backing of traditional Democratic Party leaders, Obama went outside that apparatus, reaching into parts of the state where in the past Democrats had often feared to tread.

Six months before the other candidates, for example, Obama opened an office in the city of Elko, a somewhat more accessible stand-in for the rest of rural Nevada. He also visited Elko before other candidates, and, in November, he came out with an extensive plan geared to rural Nevada. That plan included support for Nevada’s mining and ranching industries, creation of a better communications network and help for small businesses.

“They had an incredible ground game that was really unprecedented for this area,” said Lance Whitney, who helped Obama in his final weeks of the campaign in Elko. “What they found is that people in rural areas see themselves in Barack Obama. They see him as a true American success story. They see him as representing something new and fresh.”

The results in Elko could also provide a hint of sentiments running through the rural electorate. Whitney, head of Elko County’s Democratic Party, ran for mayor against a longtime Republican incumbent and business leader. Whitney, 27, lost, but did better than expected. That convinced him that Democrats can chip away at the Republican grip on rural Nevada.

Now he and other Democratic Party leaders say they see hope -- and guidance -- in the Obama results.

One example of that hope could be found in Shirley Jones, a Republican who said she showed up to Elko’s Democratic caucus because Obama appealed to her more than any other candidate from either party. “I think we need to get out of the Republican mind-set, because they’ve gotten us into debt,” she said.

At another precinct in Elko, Richard Todd switched parties to caucus with the Democrats and was swiftly chosen to advocate for Obama to undecided caucusgoers. Twelve of Todd’s Republican neighbors in the precinct joined him in changing parties to caucus for Obama. Whitney said newly registered Democrats made up one-third of the voters who showed up in his precinct.

That, local political watchers say, is because Elko’s particularly Western, independent brand of conservatism takes nicely to Obama’s anti-partisan, anti-Washington calls for “change,” “hope” and “telling the truth.” Many of those voters also favored Obama because he did not have support from the state party regulars, most of whom lined up behind Clinton.

“While Clinton’s experience is a plus, people here don’t like that mean-spirited inability for people to work across party lines,” said Douglas McMurdo, a columnist and editor at the Elko Daily Free-Press. “Obama seemed to be the one candidate that could mend that.”

For state Democratic Party leaders, the challenge is to build on the work of Obama’s campaign, as well as the efforts of organizers such as Trigg from the state party that threw together a caucus in places where, in some cases, there had been almost no party at all. This year, five rural counties that had been dormant will hold party conventions, Trigg said.

That’s good news for people such as Jill Derby.

When the chairwoman of the Nevada Democratic Party ran for Nevada’s second congressional district in 2006, she often found herself struggling to throw together barbecues and town hall meetings in out-of-the-way counties where there were no Democratic supporters to call on.

Today, the party is “organized out in the rurals down to the precinct level in a way that we haven’t been in the past,” Derby said. “This is going to be a very big lift” for Democrats in future elections.

But making up ground for her -- should she decide to run again this year -- could be tough. Derby received half as much support as her Republican foe last year. The winner, Republican Dean Heller, drew 7,362 votes to Derby’s 3,611.Discussion: 1 comment so far…

Sometimes your optimism is contagious ,but in analysing your exhilaration one wonders if it is naivety.The way you present the results of certain counties in the state of Nevada during the caucus last week is as a "fait accompli ":Senator Obama is attracting more republicans to the democratic party therefore he will win the presidential election.You ignore the spanish votes which is more substantial than the black votes and a few republicans who cross the lines during the primaries .Remember the electoral process is a marathon not a sprint.I'll talk to you next Tuesday.

I wish with all my heart that your pronostic reflects the reality of the electorate all over the United States,but New Hampshire showed us that such is not the case.Yesterday I listened with great pleasure Senator Obama's brilliant speech to the people of America,as I said before I admire his eloquence ;he spoke about hope.Yes hope sustains life as we haitians say.but hope must be based on reality for it could be dramatic to have hope on baseless assumptions like those believers who think that God will take care of them no matter what they do. Yes the wall of Jericho fell because the people spoke in one voice.The electorate is multiracial and multicultural,therefore one must take into consideration not one group 's consideration ,but the whole electorate.

Folks, Please archive what i am going to say and we will discuss it after the general elections.

There are things that i don't argue. Because it's just a waste of time. In an election, there are decided voters, and undecided voters.

I beleive someone like San malice is a decided voter who will vote Hillary, I beleive Keen is a decided voter who will vote OBAMA. No one can make them change their positions until proof of contrary.

Those decided folks are not the ones to convince now, since they already have steadily chosen their candidates. Now you need to tend a hand to the independents and those deceived republicans. That is exactly where Obama beats Hillary. Hillary's contituency is solid and doesn't go anywhere beyond the traditional DNC's constituency.

A Hillary's candidacy will be the only thing that can moralize, mobilize and revive the broken Republican Party. Because, according to the polls half of American don't like her and the GOP will stop her at any cost.

Now tell me how someone is gonna win a general election while half of a country is against you? A Hillary presidency will be polarized, because the figure is just divisive and she won't get a vote from the republicans for her over spending healthcare and so on.

If Hillary wins the presidency, one thing is sure the DNC will lose the senate and the house. The gridlock will continue.Hillary is not the right choise, he cannot bring about change oh sorry SHE

Who says half of the people are against Senator Clinton .So far she has more people voted for her in New hampshire and in Nevada.Goerges Bush did not have the majority of the votes during the election in 2000.Count the total of people who voted in the democratic primaries and those who voted in the republican primaries and you will see the fallacy of your assumption.

How did she get elected Senator in New York if so many people hate her ?Do yo take into account the spanish population, the jewish population ,the blacks .the females,the people who are disguted with the way the republicans are governing the country,the way the economy has been mismanaged by Goerges Bush and the Republican Congress..Are you sure the independants are going to vote for Senator Obama in the general election?;it did not happen in NewHampshire and in Nevada . Do you really believe that white Southeners are going to vote for Obama against Senator Mac Cain or Mitt Romney?Wake up ,you are living in the United States of America.

Dick Morris is an Hillary Clinton hater.Hillary didn't want him in the White House ,because she knew he was a right wing hack who used to work for yes Trent lott ,but also for the ultra-reactionnary Jesse Helms.The Republicans began their talking points ,saying that the negatives on Hillary are too high for her to be elected.Don't believe it.The republicans are masters at these kind of tactics ,but remember they wil have in front of them a master politician:Bill Clinton.One thing one ought to know about the Clintons ,they are not John Kerry and even Al Gore.They are going to answer left hook with left hook,they will even add a right hook of their own.The Clintons will not be "swift boated" as Kerry was!